Re: Second round of advise on packaging python-csb
Sorry for the late reply, and thanks to everyone who contributed to this
thread.
On 15/11/12 09:01, Andreas Tille wrote:
> If Jakub wrote *ideally* than he most probably intended to write that we
> should try to do so but there might be some good reasons to derive from
> this ideal situation. I admit, I usually try to rebuild the docs in my
> packages and I do at least verify that I can *reproduce* all the docs.
> However, sometimes there are good reasons to simply use the
> autogenerated docs from upstream. Without having checked the thing
> myself your description sounds as if it could be the case here.
> IMHO the question whether you rebuild the docs from source and the fact
> whether the docs will end up in a separate binary package are
> orthogonal. I'm a fan if separate docs and I think 24MB are some good
> reason to do this.
Great, seems like a separate package would be the way to go then.
> I agree with those other to people who answered this part of your mail
> that having the tests packaged and thus ready for testing by the user
> at the installation target (which is simply different from testing at
> upstream side) is a very good idea and should be approached. Please
> also regard Jakub's (?) hint to DEP8.
Right. I've contacted upstream regarding the pickled files Jakub brought
up in a previous message. I'm also looking at the autopkgtest docs I can
find, trying to figure it out. Could anyone point me to some python
packages using this kind of automated testing? If you'd rather teach me
how to fish, I'd be very interested in learning about the best way to
search packages for specific content in the "debian/*" files. In this
case, for example, search for "XS-Testsuite: autopkgtest" and "python"
or something of the sort. (Wishful thinking, maybe?)
Tomás
Reply to: